today at five: a parliamentary bill is expected within days leading to the start of the brexit process. it follows a ruling by the uk supreme court that ministers must be consulted before the process can begin. so any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the uk constitution, namely by an act of parliament. to proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries. the brexit minister, david davis, says the new law won't delay the government's plan to trigger article 50 by the end of march. we will within days introduce legislation to give the government the legal power to trigger article 50 and begin the formal process of withdrawal. but the supreme court ruled that the devolved administrations in northern ireland, wales and scotland should not have a say. it brought this response.

with every day that passes right now, it is becoming clearer that scotland's voice cannot and is not able to be heard within the uk on this question. we will have the latest on this landmark ruling and the reaction to it. in other news: president trump meets us car—makers and tells them to keep manufacturing on american soil. the widow of a man killed in the tunisia terror attack tells an inquest how she "played dead" as the gunman killed 38 people. # city of stars, are you shining just me... and la la land tops the oscars race with a record—equalling 14 nominations including best picture. it's five o'clock.

our main story is that ministers will present a parliamentary bill within days to start the process of leaving the european union following a ruling by the supreme court. the judges decided that ministers did not have the right to trigger the process of leaving without the approval of parliament. labour says it will not block the brexit process, it wants what it calls a meaningful vote on the final deal. today's judgment was delivered by 11 justices of the supreme court. they ruled against the government by a majority of eight to three. the presiding judge, lord neuberger, said: "the uk's constitutional arrangements require such changes to be clearly authorised by parliament." and he went on: "to proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries."

but the supreme court decided unanimously that the devolved administrations in scotland, wales and northern ireland did not need to give their approval for the brexit process to start. we'll be discussing the implications of this with the snp‘s mike russell a little later. so the defeat for theresa may means there will need to be a vote in both houses of parliament at westminster before the brexit talks can begin. our political correspondent carole walker has the latest. this was a case with profound implications. who should decide the process for taking the uk out of the eu? the decision, taken by 11 of the most seniorjudges in the land, was delivered to the hushed courtroom. today, by a majority of eight to three, the supreme court rules that the government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament authorising it to do so. article 50 begins the formal negotiations for leaving the eu,

a process which the judges said would fundamentally change uk law. the referendum is of great political significance, but the act of parliament which established it did not say what should happen as a result. so any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the uk constitution, namely by an act of parliament. the verdict was clear — the judgment spells out why the court had rejected the government's case. the government will comply with the judgment of the court and do all that is necessary to implement it. the woman who brought the case said the ruling reaffirmed that parliament is sovereign. this ruling today means that mps we have elected will rightfully have the opportunity to bring their invaluable experience and expertise to bear in helping the government select the best course in the forthcoming brexit negotiations.

is this a blow to the government's brexit timetable, sir? but the government will be relieved that the court ruled that there is no legal requirement for it to consult the devolved nations, scotland, wales and northern ireland. so the focus now switches to parliament. mps and peers won't try to block the brexit process, but they could delay it. opposition parties are already setting out the changes they will try to make to the coming legislation, changes which could affect the government's whole approach to the negotiations over britain's departure from the eu. we're very clear. we're going to hold them to account to protectjobs. to account to make sure british industry does have market access, and we will not allow ourselves to become some kind of offshore tax haven. that is not what people voted for. unless the government concedes

a new deal for the british people so that the british people have a say over the final arrangements between the uk and the eu, i will vote against article 50. the snp say they will table 50 amendments. the prime minister set out last week a path towards the hardest of hard brexits. i don't believe there's a majority for that in the house of commons. i certainly don't believe there's a majority for that across the country, so this is an opportunity for the house of commons to assert itself and to have a say notjust on the narrow question, but on the broader terms of the negotiation as well. downing street say today's ruling will not affect the timetable for theresa may to begin negotiating with other eu leaders. the government will introduce a bill in the commons within days. this will be the most straightforward bill possible to give effect to the decision of the people and respect the supreme court's judgment. the purpose of this bill is simply to give the government the power to invoke article 50 and begin the process of leaving the european union.

but the scene is set for some tough parliamentary clashes before the bigger battles with the rest of the eu can even begin. carole walker, bbc news, westminster. let's go live to westminster. the former conservative cabinet ministerjohn whittingdale is in our westminster studio. what is your initial reaction?” what is your initial reaction? i was not surprised by the reaction of the supreme court, it was predicted. it is not a great obstacle, parliament will have to have a vote on a very short bill, but that can be introduced very quickly. i would expect the overwhelming majority of mps to vote for it, and we can still do stick to the timetable as originally announced by the prime minister. was it really necessary to pushit minister. was it really necessary to push it this far and get the supreme court to point out that parliament is sovereign? it isn't a shocking statement. there were big

constitutional issues, and the supreme court judgment does constitutional issues, and the supreme courtjudgment does have implications going far beyond brexit. it is all to do with the royal prerogative, the position of the crown in parliament. if you are a constitutional lawyer or an academic, this will give you material for years to come, but on the practical question of preceding now to implement the decision of the referendum, i don't see that it causes any problem and i would expect parliament to pass the legislation quickly. what would you say today about a white paper setting out more detail and underlining what the prime minister herself as outlined in the last few weeks? the prime minister has already set out pretty clearly what oui’ already set out pretty clearly what our objectives are. if that was to be formalised as a government document, that is fine. but i perfectly understand the reluctance of the prime minister and the government to go into too much detail, because the last thing you do before you commence negotiation is to announce exactly what it is that you are trying to achieve and

what you are prepared to concede an. today we had the snp say they cannot accept a situation where the prime minister is proposing in their words the hardest of hard brexits when scotla nd wa nted the hardest of hard brexits when scotland wanted to remain. do you have any subo the devolved —— any sympathy at all with the devolved parliaments? this is not a matter that was devolved, if it had been an independent scotland, that would be a different matter, but scotland voted to remain part of the united kingdom, and these kind of issues are reserved to the westminster parliament, so i'm sure there will be discussion with the scottish government, we will want to hear what they have to say, but at the end of the day, the decision rightly rests with westminster. on the broader timetable, rests with westminster. on the broadertimetable, given rests with westminster. on the broader timetable, given that we are now expecting article 50 to be triggered at the end of march, the two—year timetable following that and all its complexity, is that

still realistic? i very much hope so. still realistic? i very much hope so. i think it is in the interests of both sides, notjust the uk but europe as well, to resolve these issues. there are two issues, the question of the terms under which the uk leaves the eu, and then the negotiation of a new trading arrangement between us. i hope that both of those things can proceed. if one lags behind the other, there might bea one lags behind the other, there might be a short period of transition, but i hope we can move swiftly on both because it is in both sides' interests. and in terms of economic cost, to what extent are you as someone who of economic cost, to what extent are you as someone who will be talking to your own voters are looking ahead to your own voters are looking ahead to the next election in 2020 if there isn't one before then, what would you say to people about the economic cost that might have to be paid in this process? you need to look at the economic opportunities that this opens up. britain is a globally trading nation, some of the fastest—growing markets and greatest

opportunities lie outside europe. europe has been stagnating in recent yea rs, europe has been stagnating in recent years, where as the real opportunities are in china, india, america, and we now have the freedom to negotiate our own deals which we have been unable to do until now, so i don't think there is a significant cost risk but there are substantial opportunities. mr whittingdale, thank you for talking to us. joining me now from westminster is the shadow attorney general shami chakrabarti. thank you forjoining us. broadly today, on the ruling itself, what do you make of it? thejudges today, on the ruling itself, what do you make of it? the judges have done theirjob, and i'm really sorry that out theirjob, and i'm really sorry that our seniorjudges have theirjob, and i'm really sorry that our senior judges have had theirjob, and i'm really sorry that our seniorjudges have had such a battering in parts of the media and by parts of our politics, they have just done theirjob, both the high court first of all, the divisional court, and then the supreme court. all they have done is uphold our constitution and the primary principle but it is parliament that

is sovereign, and it is a bit of a shame that the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this acceptance that parliament is sovereign. people who say that the courts are an unelected elite that has delayed brexit need to think about where the source of the delay is, because the government could have admitted that they needed to come to parliament straight after the referendum, or they could have accepted the high court's decision, and the vilification of the judges continues, and it is completely inappropriate. if after this process is all over, we are serious but people should come to britain and incorporate their companies and do business here, it is not helpful to trash our legal system and our judiciary. let's talk about the weeks ahead. this bill is meant to be very simple, maybe a couple of short paragraphs. to what extent is their leeway in their labour to amend it in a meaningful way? their leeway in their labour to amend it in a meaningfulway? i'm not convinced that a couple of lines or paragraphs will honour the spirit

of this judgment. the judgment or paragraphs will honour the spirit of thisjudgment. the judgment said it is for parliament to determine the nature of this bill, that is not the nature of this bill, that is not the courts but it is not purely government either, and i don't think that government should be arrogant now. having done what it has done so far, which was pretty churlish to begin with, i think government needs to reach out to all quarters in the houses of parliament and all parts of this divided united kingdom, and i don't think a couple of lines is going to do the trick. there has got to be real engagement by everyone in parliament with this bill, because the bill haas to begin to shape not just whether or we are in or out of the eu, but what kind of country this is going to be afterwards, and this is going to be afterwards, and this is going to be afterwards, and this is where the real debate begins. mrs may is talking about an offshore tax saving off the coast of europe, and that would mean the end of our public services and employment protection. jeremy corbyn's labour party will not tolerate that, we want to united kingdom that benefits everyone, so we need the beginning of an

alternative vision of what britain will be, and that is partly what the battle is going to be over this bill to begin with and the next two years going forward. so what will your position be if the bill comes forward in a way that you find unacceptable, if it is too brief and doesn't give us the picture you have been giving us there, what happens then? we will have to seek to amend it, andl then? we will have to seek to amend it, and i don't think that we will be alone in that. you have heard from people around the united kingdom, a very divided kingdom at the moment, and the government should take seriously its possibility to unite, including consulting people around the uk, evenif consulting people around the uk, even if it is not a legal requirement. i think we have to seek to have real debate about the contents of this bill, and that may well be debates over amendments. if the government thinks a two line bill to give them a blank cheque is going to do the trick, they are mistaken. how will you square that

with labour's previous assertion that it will not lock brexit. will people not see what used just said asa people not see what used just said as a possible warning that you might be trying to put a stop to parts of the bill if you don't find acceptable? we are clear, we are democrats, and we accept the outcome of the referendum, that means we are leaving the european union. but we cannot give the government of the day, not even an elected government, unelected by minister, a blank cheque to change the face of our country, there has to be input from everyone , country, there has to be input from everyone, and that has to continue. shami chakrabarti, very interesting to talk to you thank you. the shadow attorney general there. i am going to pick up some of those points now with vicky young, our chief political correspondent. shami chakrabarti political correspondent. shami chakra barti saying that political correspondent. shami chakrabarti saying that this bill if too brief will not be to labour's

liking. yes, the supreme court decision would seem to have given parliament the chance to block the bill, but talking to people in the houses of parliament, the house of lords, iam not houses of parliament, the house of lords, i am not getting a sense there is an appetite for that. they will seek to make some changes, but it could well be that there are will be some conservatives coming on side with a white paper, labour will be pushing for parliament have more of a say throughout the negotiating period, they want the government to come back to parliament on all of that, and there is a question mark about this final vote that mps have been given at the end of the process , been given at the end of the process, they will be asking lots of questions about when that vote might come, is it a veto, would it send theresa may back to brussels to try to get a better deal. i don't think there are many labour mps who want to be seen to be blocking the will of the people. they have in their constituencies lots of people who voted to leave the european union,

and equally in the house of lords, we had people like lord blunkett, former labour home secretary, who said it would be foolish in the extreme and unthinkable for the unelected house of lords to block brexit, so i think that is where we are, andi brexit, so i think that is where we are, and i think at the moment it is more likely than not that the government, that theresa may, will be able to stick to a timetable to trigger article 50, get those negotiations going by the end of march. that isn't to say there won't be difficulties along the way, but at the moment, not much of an appetite from mps or peers to block the process. vicky, thank you very much. let's talk about another vital aspect of this today. nicola sturgeon, the first minister of scotland, says she's disappointed by the decision of the supreme court that the devolved administrations in scoand, wales and northern ireland do not need to be consulted for the brexit process to begin. nicola sturgeon said it showed the devolution settlement was "not worth the paper it was written on". the welsh government said

it was vital that theresa may reflected the interests of wales in her brexit negotiations. this was the announcement by lord neuberger in the supreme court earlier today. on the devolution issues, the court unanimously rules the uk ministers are not legally compelled to consult the devolved legislatures before triggering article 50. the devolution statutes were enacted on the assumption that the uk would be a member of the eu, but they do not require it. relations with the eu are a matter for the uk government. relations with the eu. joining us from edinburgh is the snp's mike russell, who's ministerfor uk negotiations on scotland's place in europe. first of all, on the main ruling to do with not seeking the approval of the devolved legislatures, your broad response to that first? we are

disappointed, but it does show that the scotland act, which enshrined the scotland act, which enshrined the legislative consent process in law, is meaningless and worthless. this was much trumpeted by all the uk parties, apparently scotland was to be treated as an equal, that clearly isn't true. but what the judgment says is they are not legally required to consult, but the judgment also points out that the powers of the parliament will be changed, so we believe that a legislative change motion should be required here, and we will give parliament a chance to vote. what will happen if ministers, as they are today, are refusing to see this picture in terms of scotland, wales, england and northern ireland, they are only focusing on a uk picture, and that for you clearly is the main message? they are forcing this issue toa message? they are forcing this issue to a crisis. i am a member of the joint ministerial eu negotiation committee, and we put a paper to

that which is still being considered, to be in a situation where it appears that ministers are contemptuous of scottish opinion is very u nfortu nate. that is opinion on things that affect scotland. we are not talking about things that we don't have a responsibility for, we are talking about health, education, agriculture, industry, things we legislate on that are fundamentally affected by this. the scottish parliament not only should be consulted, it must be consulted, and it must have a right to have an opinion, and we are going to give it that right. how good this process affect public opinion in scotland on governance in the future? affect public opinion in scotland on governance in the future ?|j affect public opinion in scotland on governance in the future? i think there is a growing realisation that there is a growing realisation that the promises made during the 2014 independence referendum were only promises, they had no validity. there was a promise to say that the only way you could say in the eu was to vote against independence, but it has turned out to be the opposite. the promise that scotland would be a

full and equal partner with a fully devolved assembly is simply not true. and if people keep telling you things that aren't true, you lose all trust in them. and in terms of the practicalities, mike, when people start asking you about the prospect of another referendum on independence, what are you saying to them? it remains an option, but it is essentially becoming the last option in this process. we laid out a whole range of options. it is really u p a whole range of options. it is really up to the prime minister now to respond to them, because she is the one that is pushing towards this final option. she has the opportunity, we meet on monday at thejoint ministerial opportunity, we meet on monday at the joint ministerial committee, she has the opportunity to take very seriously the paper we put forward and to negotiate syriza on that paper to ensure that scotland can remain in the single market, can have a customs union with the rest of the uk, can increase devolved powers and we can move forward on that basis. or she can decide that she doesn't want to honour the agreement is she has made, in which case the option of a referendum

become stronger. and based on what you have heard so far, which we deal think it is going? regrettably, theresa may appears to be deaf to this, it is time she woke up and looked at the reality of the situation. she is creating a crisis. she can stop the crisis, but she has to decide to do it. michael russell, thank you ray mujwa joining us. to decide to do it. michael russell, thank you ray mujwajoining us. the snp's mike russell. —— thank you very much forjoining us. president trump has been meeting american car manufacturers today to try to boostjobs in the united states. he told them that if they want to sell cars in the us, they need to build their new car plants there as well. meanwhile, president trump has signed executive orders intended to relaunch two rather controversial oil pipelines. both were the subject of protests by environmentalists. our correspondent andy moore reports. the new day and a new set of meetings in washington for president trump. this time, it was the car—makers. he told them he would be doing everything in his power to

reduce regulation and fulfil his pledge to make america great again. we are bringing manufacturing back to the united states. we are reducing taxes very substantially and we are reducing unnecessary regulation. so we want regulation, but we want real regulations. after the meeting, donald trump was praised for his decision to stop in its tracks a trade deal with pacific rim countries. we appreciate that the president's courage to walk away from a bad trade deal. sol the president's courage to walk away from a bad trade deal. so i think as an industry, we are excited about working together with the president and his administration on tax policies, an regulation, on trade, to really create a renaissance in american manufacturing. president trump has given approval to the keystone trump has given approval to the keysto ne x l trump has given approval to the keystone xl pipeline carrying oil from canada to american refineries on the gulf coast. president obama stopped construction because he said it would undermine efforts to get a global deal on climate change.

despite that, president trump says he does have green credentials. despite that, president trump says he does have green credentialslj despite that, president trump says he does have green credentials. i am too large extent an environmentalist, believe me, but it is of control. and we are going to make a very short process, and we are going to either give you your permit or we are not going to give you your permit, but you will know very quickly. and another date for president trump's doire has been pencilled in. he is due to address congress for the first time on february 20th. andy moore, bbc news. and for the latest opportunity to ta ke and for the latest opportunity to take stock of what is going on with the trump administration, katty kay and christian fraser will have the latest edition of 100 days, our special new programme looking at the progress the trump administration is making, or lack of progress, maybe, in other areas, that is 7pm tonight. news just newsjust in from news just in from my colleagues at westminster, government sources are telling the bbc that the bill to

trigger article 50 will be introduced to parliament on thursday, so in a couple of days' time, with an expectation that it could be concluded in the commons in a fortnight, that may be ambitious depending on how many amendments tabled, and the process within the commons itself. it then needs to go to the house of lords, but the bill itself is likely to be emerging on thursday, and then to be put through the commons in the hope of ministers ina the commons in the hope of ministers in a fortnight, so that is the latest we have that. the head of bt in europe, corrado sciolla, is to resign over the accounting scandal at the company's italian division. shares in the company have plunged in value after the news that it will have to set aside £530 million to cover losses as a result of improper practices. a man who was on holiday with his

wife in tunisia said that the thompson staff who he booked with didn't warn them about potential security risks just a month before terrorist attacks on the beach. the man, whose wife claire was killed in the attack in may 2015 also said that thomson staff didn't mention the travel advice which was online. our correspondent richard galpin joins me now from the royal courts ofjustice in central london. this is a really important piece of evidence in this inquest, because the role of the holiday companies is absolutely key. it has been discussed already a lot in this inquest. did they provide enough information to the holiday—makers, many of whom had booked through thomson which is a subsidiary of tui. did they provide sufficient information to be bob planning to go to tunisia? it appears that they did

not according tojim when gas. he was asked by the lawyer representing the families, did anyone mention to you from amongst the thomson staff at the store in hull, which is where they live, did they mention anything to you about the security threat, and he said absolutely they did not. did they provide you did they mention the availability of the foreign office travel advisories which are on the foreign office website? again, he said, no, they did not. and he said that, having heard what the travel advice was, that was also read out by mr ritchie, he said if he had heard that at the time, he would never have gone to tunisia. so a very strong statement from him. and he also talked about the moment when his wife was killed. they had been on the beach where many of the holiday—makers were killed, the gunman was rampaging through the area at the time, and obviously like many others they tried to run away,

and as they tried to move away from the sunbeds, his wife claire was hit bya the sunbeds, his wife claire was hit by a bullet and fell to the ground. he said that he went down on his knees as well, trying to help her, and at that moment, the gunman came closer and closer, he shot more people around them, and then turned round to mr windass and looked at him, but he did not open fire. it was after that thatjim windass said he checked his wife to see if there was any pulse, and there was not, and he closed her eyes. so obviously and he closed her eyes. so obviously a very harrowing time for him, and having to really have that in court today. what we have also had again today. what we have also had again todayis today. what we have also had again today is other witnesses talking about the failures of emergency staff and some of the staff at the hotel. one man describing how, a british tourist describing how he was close to a man who had been injured in the legs, and he called

the paramedics, they came and they had no medical equipment with them, and just stood there and did absolutely nothing. and likewise another witness talking about the reactions some of the staff of the hotel, not helping the holiday—makers try to make their escape, instead panicking themselves, and this particular witness said that he had to try to initiate things, to try to get doors locked and windows locked in the building where they had fled to do try to stop the gunman getting in. so very, very chaotic. richard, thank you very much for bringing us up—to—date on those inquest at the royal courts of justice. the time is 29 minutes past five. we will have an update on the weather in a moment, butjust a quick reminder that i will be joined by the film criticjason solomons talking about this year's oscar nominations in about 20 minutes. and nominations in about 20 minutes. and no surprise that the musical la la land has been nominated for a record

equalling 14 awards, plenty of british interest across the categories, so stay with us, and jason will be with us shortly. here's the latest in the weather withjohn. it has been foggy all day and it is an issue once again as we head into the night. potentially some disruption and some warnings from the met office. initially across southern counties and up into the midlands and eastern counties. temperatures close to below freezing. it is milderfurther west. and some rain around but essentially dry. so a wintry start to the day and the fog taking some time to lift. quite gloomy in southern and

eastern areas compared with today. cloud across much of northern ireland and scotland but here it is reasonably mild. chile across east anglia and the south—east and that isa sign anglia and the south—east and that is a sign of things to come. that is it, more than half hour. dashboard in halfan it, more than half hour. dashboard in half an hour. this is bbc news at five — the headlines. the uk supreme court has ruled — by a majority of eight to three —

that parliament must give its consent before the government can trigger article 50 — the start of the formal process to exit the european union. today by a majority of eight to three, the supreme court rules that the government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament authorising it to do so. the government says it's still aiming to trigger article 50 by the end of march, and brexit secretary david davis tells mps how ministers plan to comply with the judgement. we will within days introduce legislation to give the government legal power to trigger article 50 and begin the formal process of withdrawal. us president donald trump has urged the leaders of some of the country's biggest car companies to increase production on american soil and boost employment. the inquest in the tunisia terror attack has heard evidence of how the victims died — including a woman who survived by playing dead after she was

shot five times. now a look at the sports news. formula one is preparing for a new era without bernie ecclesone. the us firm liberty media say that a fresh start is required and after completing their £6.5 billion take—over of the sport, there is no place for the man who has been in charge for 40 years. here's our sports correspondent andy swiss. he's the former used—car salesman who came to rule motorsport with an iron grip. but for bernie ecclestone, it's finally the end of the road. over 40 years, he turned formula one from a niche interest into a multi—billion pound powerhouse. oh, my goodness, this is fantastic! but now it has new owners — american company liberty media. they believe the sport can

promote itself better, especially on social media, and so they put a new man, chase carey, in the driving seat. i would expect this is difficult for bernie, it's a big change for him, he's run the sport, he's run the sport as a one—man... he calls himself a dictator, he's run it as a one—man dictatorfor a long time. i think the sport needs a fresh perspective. tough and uncompromising, ecclestone's business brain brought him famous friends and huge personal fortune, but it's also brought controversy. off the track, he had to settle a bribery case in germany, while on it his decisions have raised eyebrows — taking races to countries like bahrain, with questionable human rights records, tinkering with the rules, and skewing prize money towards the big teams. after so long in power, many feel a change in direction is overdue. i think the most important thing is getting back to the basics of outright racing, engaging with the fans, engaging with the public,

and perhaps de—complicating the cars a little, and going back to man and machine being at the absolutely limit. ecclestone will still have an advisory role, but a man so used to being the puppet master is no longer pulling the strings. at 86, his reign is over, and formula one, indeed sport, will surely never see his like again. andy swiss, bbc news. the former olympic champion nicole cooke says british cycling is run "by men, for men" and says attempts to stop doping are "inadequate and ineffective". cooke made the claims in written evidence submitted to a culture, media and sport select committee earlier today. the session was held to discuss issues raised at a hearing involving british cycling and team sky last month. cooke said british cycling shows "discrimination and favouritism" because it is "answerable to itself". london welsh have been kicked out

of the rugby union championship following their liquidation last month the exiles were granted a temporary licence to play but the rugby football union says the club haven't met the conditions required to extend that licence. they were a premiership side as recently as 2015 but were relegated after losing all 22 games. all their results will be expunged from the championship, and there will be no relegation from the second tier this season. welsh were formed in 1885. roger federer has reached the semi—finals at the australian open easing past germany's mischa zverev in straight sets the 17—time grand slam champion saw off andy murray's conquerer in just over an hour and a half. he'll now face his swiss compatriot stan wawrinka next. if he reaches the final, it will be federer‘s first in a slam for 18 months. venus williams reached the semi—finals for the first

time in fourteen years. she beat russia's anastasia pavlyuchenkova, also in straight sets. she will now play unseeded american coco vandeweghe for a place in the final. that's all the sport for now. you can keep up to date with all those stories on the bbc sport website. that's bbc. co. uk/sport — and i'll have more in sportsday at half past six. let's return to our top story — the promise by ministers that they will present a parliamentary bill within days — to start the process of the uk leaving the european union. it follows a ruling by the supreme court — that ministers did not have a right to trigger the process of leaving — without the approval of parliament. the 11 justices ruled against the government

by a majority of 8 to 3. joining us is lord hope of craighead — a former deputy president of the united kingdom supreme court — and a former lord president of the court of session — the most seniorjudge in scotland. thank you for coming in. did it need this to point out that parliament is sovereign? an interesting feature of the case, it was not unanimous. three people had a different view of the and it was a thoughtful dissent from lord reid and thatjust indicates that there was an issue there. it was not all that straightforward and had to be resolved. the virtue of the judgment is that it has solved the problem which had to be solved byjudges.

the three who dissented, how would you describe the nub of that decision? they took a careful review of the way the treaty predominates over the effect of the removal. their point was that the treaty is something which is in the hands of the prerogative but the government is seeking do is subtract itself from the treaty and everything that flows from that is the consequence of doing something which is within the prerogative power. that is a snapshot of what they said. the majority took the view that you cannot escape from the fact that in removing ourselves from the eu that will affect individual rights. there was a question of where you place the emphasis and what would have been interesting is not so much the hearing as the discussion that took place afterwards. when the 11 got together in a room to thrash out between them. were you surprised that we had three judges dissenting?

no, having watched some sessions i spotted that two of the three dissenters were people i wondered about. i will not say actively dissenting but having read the judgment and surmised to it was, they took an interesting line different from the others. one point about the supreme court is everyone is there to think for themselves. it is there to think for themselves. it isa is there to think for themselves. it is a small comfort for the government that there was this dissent is not just government that there was this dissent is notjust a token dissent, but a carefully reasoned and impressivejudgment but a carefully reasoned and impressive judgment i think from lord reid. this has been such a high—profile process, it is rare for us high—profile process, it is rare for us to be devoting so much time in public debate to the supreme court and the legal process. do you think, what has it done for public debate on brexit, improve the quality of debate? i hope it has made it clear that the court has a function but a limited function. the court was not

interested in taking a decision about brexit, that was the referendum. your watch it happen afterwards. it is a matter for parliament, the details of what was to happen next are not laid out. they said parliament must legislate but the former that is entirely a matter for parliament. it is an interesting point made earlier by shami chakrabarti, interesting point made earlier by shami chakra barti, the interesting point made earlier by shami chakrabarti, the government was the party to the case which lost and in effect parliament has been the winner and it is now over two parliament to resolve the issue. but the court has stopped at the right point and handed over to parliament. what you surprised by the decision that westminster really is where the buck stops and the devolved legislatures in scotland, northern ireland and wales, do not need to

give approval? you said to not need, but the court said and it was careful in its language, there is no legal requirement. this is a narrow point, what you make of convention and the convention was legislated recently into the scotland act, and there was a lot of debate in parliament about the effect of that. the court ruled if you legislate and bring a convention of such, it remains a convention and is not up to thejudges but remains a convention and is not up to the judges but there is a great political issue of the same which the court did not comment upon. that is left unsaid by them and still must be resolved. because clearly some wanted a much clearer instructions if you like to require approval and that was not there. instructions if you like to require approval and that was not therem would not be for the court to do that. their question was is there a legal requirement and they said it isa legal requirement and they said it is a matter for the convention and

the convention is to be respected, all we can do is to say it exists and then it is over to the government to decide what to do according to the political process. cani according to the political process. can i ask about the personal angle, this process has brought some rather aggressive headlines in some parts of the press, pretty personally coverage as well in terms of some of the justices. what are your thoughts on the way that that has been handled? it was a great shame last time that the decision from the high court laid bare with abuse but this time it has been made clear that the position of thejudges time it has been made clear that the position of the judges must be respected. but for the judges as individuals having been through this myself, i do not think it affects them greatly. but what it means is that they have to be very careful in

trying to explain to people what theirjudgment is trying to explain to people what their judgment is and trying to explain to people what theirjudgment is and they did that in this case. i thought the presentation this morning was admirable. they're very much aware that this is something people are at. and it sharpens your line of thought when you're trying to present the way in which you have formulated yourjudgment. present the way in which you have formulated your judgment. but present the way in which you have formulated yourjudgment. but also what is crucial for the whole country and its constitutional existence is respect for the rule of law and the judges are there to ensure that that is respected. the abuse damages that and it is for that reason rather than individual judges that it should be condemned. thank you very much. six months after the eu referendum — what do the voters make of today's ruling? our correspondent, danny savage has been finding out in leeds. when it came to the decision

on whether to leave the eu or stay, leeds voted to remain, but only just. months later, what do the 49.7% who voted to leave think now that the issue is going back to parliament? we voted to get out, so why can't we get out? it's simple. we voted for the prime minister to come in, the prime minister comes in. we vote to leave, and they stall and stall. it's wrong. a lot of countries want to do business with england, trump for starters. we don't like the guy, but that's not the point. let's get back for us. never mind other people, let's get this country going again. but remember, the majority in this city voted to stay and many haven't changed their mind. shamal is from iraq and thinks europe should stick together. i don't know what is going to happen.

would you rather they stopped brexit now and kept in europe? yeah. i was totally opposed to brexit and i voted against leaving the eu. at a nearby butcher's, jim believes things would be different if we'd known then what we know now. i know people who voted for brexit who didn't understand the circumstances and consequences of what we were voting for. i think before the referendum, we were not totally told what it implied with brexit and what it means to stay in the eu or to leave. do you wish brexit would just go away? if i could turn the clock back 12 months and start all over again, i think the lead—up to the referendum should be different. broadly speaking, those who voted for brexit just want the government to get on with it, unhindered. those who didn't are still against it, but see it as inevitable. danny savage, bbc news, leeds. let's get more on the constitutional

implications of today's supreme court ruling. my colleague ben brown is at westminster. iamjoined by i am joined by two top legal brains who have been helping to guide us through the supreme court hearing from the beginning. jeremy briar, a barrister and professor alison young, president —— professor of public law. the government last today at the supreme court but actually it could've been worse for the government in some ways. exactly, and they have just acknowledged that. they have lost, they had to take it to the supreme court but ultimately they have lost. they did not have however at is major spanner in the works where they were forced to consult the scottish, welsh and northern irish parliaments. that could have been a nightmare for them if they had a power of veto. and also they have not been very prescriptive in the

judgment about what the government need to do. obviously they need to debate this in the house of commons, the houses of parliament and pass an act but really that is all. nothing more, no more guidelines set out. in a way the government will have expected this unprepared for it and probably will be reasonably content and not losing much tonight. do you see thisjudgment and not losing much tonight. do you see this judgment as a landmark, historicjudgment legally see this judgment as a landmark, historic judgment legally and constitutionally? i think it is, it has made it clear about the division of power between the three organs of government, the courts, the government, the courts, the government and parliament. and made it clear that parliament is there to control the way in which the government acts and made it clear that the courts will tell you what the law is but do not get involved in politics. the second reason is as you have seen from coverage, it is given a good chance for people, but the public to see just how the constitution works in action and

just what makes our constitution works so well and protect democracy and the rule of law. after the high courtjudgment, one and the rule of law. after the high court judgment, one newspaper called thejudges enemies of court judgment, one newspaper called the judges enemies of the people but this time, you have the attorney general and all politicians being careful to say, the supreme court had a perfect right to judge this and it was good but the case was brought in so on. everyone has been more careful this time to be clear about that distinction, the division between the legal arena and political sphere. even gina miller on the steps of the supreme court this morning said this is not about influencing brexit. and thejustices we re influencing brexit. and thejustices were clear it is not about second—guessing the result of the referendum, that was the political sphere, that was the referendum result of this is about the legal and constitutional mechanism for putting the resultant action and triggering the article 50 notification. in that sense has been an educative process for of us and

no doubt it will be discussed now in the hallowed halls of universities for many years. we surprised not surprised thejudgment for many years. we surprised not surprised the judgment that we heard this morning? i was not surprised, especially the second point that the convention is only politically binding and on the first point i think you could see from the discussion of the constitutional importance of joining the discussion of the constitutional importance ofjoining the eu that they were moving towards the need to have parliament give them that say. and trigger article 50. thank you so much to both of you. for the ball is now in pa rliament‘s much to both of you. for the ball is now in parliament's court, sent over from the supreme court to parliament and we will get that bill as the brexit secretary david davies said, introduced to parliament, were not quite sure when bubba government will then hope that the bill is swiftly pass. we will have wait and see. let's turn to the oscars now — and the nominations for the 2017

academy awards have been announced. the musical ‘la la land' tops the list with no fewer than 14 nominations — equalling the all—time record. and meryl streep has extended her lead as the most—nominated performer in oscar history — she's been recognised for her lead role in florence fosterjenkins. before we get into talking about all the nominees with the criticjason solomons — let's have a quick look at a clip from la la land. # city of stars. # city of stars. # are you shining just for me? # are you shining just for me? # city of stars. # city of stars. # there's so much that i cant see.

# there's so much that i cant see. # who knows, is this the start of something wonderful? #or something wonderful? # orone something wonderful? # or one more dream that i cannot make true? just a taste of la la land. 14 nominations, that takes some doing. it got other nominations as well for the musical score. musicals can hog nominations with costumes but i think that was thoroughly deserved. i think it is sweet, funny, sad and romantic. i do not understand where there is almost a backlash with people saying it is no west side story. but it is modern and self referential and knowing. it is not camp, it is of now. there was a question about whether people have

their opinions influenced by having suddenly an award—winning production and because of that people saying it is brilliant. and with 40 nominations you expect that to change your life but you will go and be happy and it will still be raining when you come out. it is an escapist fantasy film. it is called la la land. it is about dreaming and i think it does a rather beautifully. i'm delighted for them. let's talk about the other nominations as well, some of the highlights for you, stuff you would expect and maybe would not? one i did expect to do well is moonlight, not out here yet in the uk. but it had eight nominations, second only to la la land and also my second favourite film. the kind of film but a couple of years ago i think would have fallen down the cracks, maybe been as a few festivals and well

received but not thrust onto the main stage. it is a small independent film with an entirely black cast and crew. miami harris is one of the nominees for this film for this country. it has been nominated for its director barry jenkins. it is a young film with a different way of telling the black american experience, how tough it is to grow up as a young black man and dealing with sexuality in florida. it isa dealing with sexuality in florida. it is a beautiful, poetic film that ta kes it is a beautiful, poetic film that takes cinema forward another leap and it needs to do that. and i think we'll light and la la land are the vanguard of where cinema is now. so the academy has got it spot on. now they cannot complain about the diverse city issued this time around, and it goes deeper than that, in the documentary section there are films about james baldwin, oj simpson, it has really changed.

let's talk about british nominations and who has their names in light. let's talk about british nominations and who has their names in lightlj mentioned miami harris and also deaf patel, he is now 26, he first burst onto the scene with slumdog millionaire. the only person not to be nominated in that film! he is terrific in a new film called lion, playing a young indian man who wants to find his roots back in india. andrew garfield who was in social network and spider—man, he has been nominated for the mel gibson film hacksaw ridge. british contenders all over the place. but film by —— about jackie kennedy and the production designer stuart craig who got one as well for the newjk rowling film fantastic beasts and where to find them. an extraordinary

feat of production. i have seen jackie and i wonder what you're made of it and the performance? natalie portman is probably the one person who could dislodge ms dhoni as favourite in that category. it gets inside her soul and her skin in the hours and days after the assassination. very intense. yes, a great performance from natalie portman. i will ask you for your nomination for best picture, best director, best actor and actress. best picture first. i think it is la la land as my choice. if moonlight was the winner i would not be upset but i think it is the time for la la land. best director? dementia out who made la la land. and who would

compete? barry jenkins for moonlight and this new fresh look he has given to cinema. ryan gosling has been nominated for best performance as actor, but there is also manchester by actor, but there is also manchester by the sea. i liked that although it was a bit miserable. i do not think there is anything new, a classic american indie film from the 1990s if you like. ms dhoni i think is beautiful in la la land but i think natalie portman something very strange with her role as jackie kennedy, i think it is an outline just experimental performance. and for me that is kind of out there, it might be too out there for academy voters. first lady right now is a hot topic and to be playing an iconic first lady might just hot topic and to be playing an iconic first lady mightjust put her front and centre of the minds of the voters. someone said it was an

effective performance, is that too critical? it is an effective film, a psychological portrait. but i understand what jack academy must have felt not losing just a husband but a bright us president think this responsibility thrust upon and then taken from there. it is a great portrait and people can make up their own minds. —— whatjackie kennedy felt. the ceremony itself, lord knows what speeches will be forthcoming! who knows, this year of all the years. thank you for coming some of us enjoyed some lovely sunshine in some places with double figures. for others it stayed for the all—day and that falk is the

main story as we head into the night. we have some fog around across southern england. so some disruption is likely. overnight tonight and tomorrow morning across southern counties, up into the midlands and also some eastern counties. milderfurther midlands and also some eastern counties. milder further north and west. mainly dry picture but that contrast in temperatures. i think the blog will lift but lifting into low cloud so still not much sunshine. some sunshine across wales and a lot of cloud again across scotland. milder game with double figures. cold across the south—east and even colder by thursday. the highestjudges in the land say ministers alone can't

trigger brexit talks — only the uk parliament has that power. the supreme court rules that the government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament authorising it to do so. it's a victory for the woman who says she brought the case to defend our democracy. no prime minister, no government can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged. parliament alone is sovereign. so parliament has the power — but ministers warn mps against using it to overturn the referendum. this judgment does not change the fact that the uk will be leaving the european union, and it is ourjob to deliver